This is the most important election in my lifetime, so which direction will you choose? More government control or more personal freedom? Your choice.

_________________

October 29th, 2012, 8:43 am

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

OK, I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning" as opposed to the other two dipshits. Again, I realize that in the short run this is a "wasted" vote, but I also have seen what the two "established" parties can do and I want no more part of that. When the rest of the country starts to realize the truth we are on our way to really solving the problems that exist.

I refuse to vote for Coke or Pepsi, sorry! I'd rather vote for against both the Reps and Dems based on both their pitiful records.

OK, I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning" as opposed to the other two dipshits. Again, I realize that in the short run this is a "wasted" vote, but I also have seen what the two "established" parties can do and I want no more part of that. When the rest of the country starts to realize the truth we are on our way to really solving the problems that exist.

I refuse to vote for Coke or Pepsi, sorry! I'd rather vote for against both the Reps and Dems based on both their pitiful records.

I get the 3rd party vote, and if this election weren't so important I'd do it too. However, this election means way, way too much. If Obama spends in his 2nd term like he did in his first I really believe it will lead to the financial collapse of our Country.

I find it odd that you won't vote for Romney, who better represents your views, only because he's backed by the Republican Party. Seems silly to me.

October 29th, 2012, 3:21 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3955Location: Davison Mi

Re: Who will you vote for?

I am still undecided between Romney and johnson. I voted for the dipshit though, cuz us dipshits gotta stick together!

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

October 29th, 2012, 3:36 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo wrote:

OK, I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning" as opposed to the other two dipshits. Again, I realize that in the short run this is a "wasted" vote, but I also have seen what the two "established" parties can do and I want no more part of that. When the rest of the country starts to realize the truth we are on our way to really solving the problems that exist.

I refuse to vote for Coke or Pepsi, sorry! I'd rather vote for against both the Reps and Dems based on both their pitiful records.

I get the 3rd party vote, and if this election weren't so important I'd do it too. However, this election means way, way too much. If Obama spends in his 2nd term like he did in his first I really believe it will lead to the financial collapse of our Country.

I find it odd that you won't vote for Romney, who better represents your views, only because he's backed by the Republican Party. Seems silly to me.

It isn't silly at all. Unless you are in a swing state, you vote means little. I'm in Texas, Romney will win this state regardless. This is a perfect year for me to vote third party. Plus, based on a couple of questions my connection with Mitt is only 2% higher than the Libertarian candidate (a statistical dead heat and quite frankly the questions they raised were not the most important to me).

As far as this election being important, that is said every presidential cycle. IMO this is one of the least important presidential elections of my lifetime. First, we have an incumbent and they virtually always win. Secondly, even if BO wins his party doesn't control congress. Third, I don't see stark differences in policy with Mitt continuing to move towards center as the election nears. Fourth, this seems to be more of an election of who you don't want rather than who IS your candidate (do you or Sly really support Mitt or just hate BO? That should tell you something...

I support anyone that isn't going to expand govt. and raise the National deficit $4 trillion dollars in four years. If re-elected Obama will keep gas prices around or over $4, our economy will continue to struggle, he'll spend us into oblivion, and his health care bill will grow to enormous proportions.

I honestly believe that Romney will be able to dismantle portions of Obamacare, the deficit will rise by less than $2.5 trillion while he is in office, we will have a more balanced budget, trade policies with China will be more equal, and gas will be $3.29 or less.

October 29th, 2012, 3:49 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

If you don't want gov't or the nat'l debt (what I think you meant instead of deficit) expanded than how in the world can you vote for either of the two parties?

Bush doubled our debt during his presidency. And despite claims (like Romney) that he would shrink gov't he actually grew the federal budget more than any prez since FDR and his new deal (and grew almost every category). Think of the Farm Bill of 2002, the No Child Left Behind Plan, Medicare Part D, and lets not even touch defense or that "bridge to nowhere".

Both parties have proven they are BIG Gov't and BIG Debt - to think so is to ignore the proof. Continue to "believe" what you want, I choose to look at past performance and know both of these parties are going to continue to take us down this same path... I for one, and I hope others will start to join me, am ready for a different path!

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.Albert Einstein

Translated for this discussion

Quote:

Insanity: voting for the same 2 parties over and over again and expecting different results.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 29th, 2012, 5:10 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who will you vote for?

Pablo wrote:

If you don't want gov't or the nat'l debt (what I think you meant instead of deficit) expanded than how in the world can you vote for either of the two parties?

Bush doubled our debt during his presidency. And despite claims (like Romney) that he would shrink gov't he actually grew the federal budget more than any prez since FDR and his new deal (and grew almost every category). Think of the Farm Bill of 2002, the No Child Left Behind Plan, Medicare Part D, and lets not even touch defense or that "bridge to nowhere".

Both parties have proven they are BIG Gov't and BIG Debt - to think so is to ignore the proof. Continue to "believe" what you want, I choose to look at past performance and know both of these parties are going to continue to take us down this same path... I for one, and I hope others will start to join me, am ready for a different path!

The deficit grew under Bush primarily because of the War. Whether or not it was a reasonable or just war is another story, still, his govt. spending sans the war was much, much better than any Democrat in recent history.

That said, I don't think Romney is some war monger that is going to go around picking fights, he doesn't have any of "his Daddy's left over battles" to fight, and there is no reasonable fear of Romney's policies leading us unnecessarily into another war. For those reasons, I think he deserves a shot.

I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning", mostly as a protest vote. I think the two party system is broken, and have thought that for a long time. Up until now I've been a hypocrite and complained about the system but still voted for one of the two, or didn't vote at all (last pres. election). Well, no more. I believe there should be other viable options, and my views happen to match up better with Gary Johnson. I don't agree with him about everything, but I do with most things, and he's 3rd party. So he's getting my vote.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

October 30th, 2012, 11:59 am

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

Insanity I tell you... Quick question - who was the last Republican not involved in a war (hot or cold)?

I could keep going on, Dwight Eisenhower was a general and involved in Korea, however I think you get the point but if you choose to believe "somehow this time will be different" then I'm not sure what evidence will sway you.

I could keep going on, Dwight Eisenhower was a general and involved in Korea, however I think you get the point but if you choose to believe "somehow this time will be different" then I'm not sure what evidence will sway you.

Now you're just being ridiculous. The "Cold War" existed from 1947 until 1991, so ALL of them have presided under a "war" of some sort? That's just flat out stupid. JFK oversaw the escalation of Vietnam into a war, but you're going to blame it on Nixon?

This whole "war monger" thing falls on two presidents shoulders, both named Bush, yet you want to assign the moniker to the whole Republican Party. That's flat out ridiculous.

October 30th, 2012, 12:17 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who will you vote for?

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning", mostly as a protest vote. I think the two party system is broken, and have thought that for a long time. Up until now I've been a hypocrite and complained about the system but still voted for one of the two, or didn't vote at all (last pres. election). Well, no more. I believe there should be other viable options, and my views happen to match up better with Gary Johnson. I don't agree with him about everything, but I do with most things, and he's 3rd party. So he's getting my vote.

There is good and bad to the two party system.

On one had there's just two choices, but on another both parties have mutated throughout the years to reflect the needs and views of their constituents. The multi-party system is just as flawed, you have ideologues that adhere to one philosophy and govern by that philosophy, often without restraints of common sense, to any end they deem fit. There is very little room for moderation in a multi-party system, as each party has its own items that it feels it must accomplish at any end while in office. What you end up with are weird coalitions of stragebedfellows making back-door deals to accomplish their own self-serving ends...

Doesn't sound much better than what we currently have, if at all...

What I find equally odd is that Romney is being criticized by ALL sides for "moving to the center," but that's EXACTLY where most Americans are!?!?!? WTF? Why criticize the guy for having views just like most people on this board? Why criticize him for NOT being a total "Party" slappy? Isn't that what we've been saying we want!?

It makes absolutely no sense to me that most on here clamor for a "3rd party choice" (which has its own complications), and they want that choice to represent "middle America," but when they're presented with a moderate candidate they reject him because he has a party affiliation.

Consider this... If there was an established 3rd party it would likely only pull votes away from one party, dived that one party it was most closely aligned to, and empower the party that most people DON'T want in office!!!

Brilliant!!!

October 30th, 2012, 12:24 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now you're just being ridiculous. The "Cold War" existed from 1947 until 1991, so ALL of them have presided under a "war" of some sort? That's just flat out stupid. JFK oversaw the escalation of Vietnam into a war, but you're going to blame it on Nixon?

This whole "war monger" thing falls on two presidents shoulders, both named Bush, yet you want to assign the moniker to the whole Republican Party. That's flat out ridiculous.

I'm following proof. Think I'm being ridiculous, look at "Cold War" spending by Regan vs. any other president. As for the democrats in office that I remember, did Carter, Clinton, or Obama declare war on anyone of note?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Consider this... If there was an established 3rd party it would likely only pull votes away from one party, dived that one party it was most closely aligned to, and empower the party that most people DON'T want in office!!!

Short term thinking is not the answer to a long term solution. Honestly, I hope everyone soon starts to put the outrageous spending as our #1 issue period. I don't care if you are Dem or Rep, we need to think about where we are heading as a country if this continues. The other issues are becoming secondary to me at this point because I deeply care about our place in the world. We can be great, but it will take sacrifice and tough decisions - something neither of the two current parties has show any ability to do.

You are so worried about losing an election that you have a 50/50 (if not better chance) of losing anyway that you can't begin to strive for long-term change to put this country back on track.

I'm voting for "Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning", mostly as a protest vote. I think the two party system is broken, and have thought that for a long time. Up until now I've been a hypocrite and complained about the system but still voted for one of the two, or didn't vote at all (last pres. election). Well, no more. I believe there should be other viable options, and my views happen to match up better with Gary Johnson. I don't agree with him about everything, but I do with most things, and he's 3rd party. So he's getting my vote.

There is good and bad to the two party system.

On one had there's just two choices, but on another both parties have mutated throughout the years to reflect the needs and views of their constituents. The multi-party system is just as flawed, you have ideologues that adhere to one philosophy and govern by that philosophy, often without restraints of common sense, to any end they deem fit. There is very little room for moderation in a multi-party system, as each party has its own items that it feels it must accomplish at any end while in office. What you end up with are weird coalitions of stragebedfellows making back-door deals to accomplish their own self-serving ends...

Doesn't sound much better than what we currently have, if at all...

What I find equally odd is that Romney is being criticized by ALL sides for "moving to the center," but that's EXACTLY where most Americans are!?!?!? WTF? Why criticize the guy for having views just like most people on this board? Why criticize him for NOT being a total "Party" slappy? Isn't that what we've been saying we want!?

It makes absolutely no sense to me that most on here clamor for a "3rd party choice" (which has its own complications), and they want that choice to represent "middle America," but when they're presented with a moderate candidate they reject him because he has a party affiliation.

Consider this... If there was an established 3rd party it would likely only pull votes away from one party, dived that one party it was most closely aligned to, and empower the party that most people DON'T want in office!!!

Brilliant!!!

I don't want a third party. I want multiple viable candidates who aren't essentially written off by the media. I think John Adams was right on the money when he said: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” This, IMO, is exactly what we have today. Two parties more focused on fighting the "other guy" instead of focusing on doing what is best for the country. We weren't always a two party system, and there's no reason it has to remain one.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson